Thursday, July 2, 2009

Just ask the animals. As soon as they stop having all that homosexual sex

I am sitting here right now smiling just a little, fondly recalling that famously controversial children's book, the one about the gay penguins.

Remember? That positively adorable pair of them, at the Central Park Zoo, who had adopted an abandoned egg and then hatched it themselves and were raising the chick together as a couple, even though the chick was clearly not theirs -- though of course how penguins can actually tell whose kid is whose is still a question. Never mind that now.

The best part: the story was absolutely true. The book, "And Tango Makes Three," was beautiful and sweet and touching in all the right ways -- except, of course, for the fact that it was also totally evil.

For indeed, the penguins in question, named Roy and Silo, were both males. This meant they were clearly in some sort of ungodly, aberrant homosexual relationship, mocking natural laws and defying God's will that all creatures only cohabitate with the opposite sex and buy microfiber sofas from Pottery Barn and eat their meals in silent resentment and never have sex.

Worst of all, the book depicted this relationship, this "family," as perfectly OK, as no big deal, as even (shudder) normal. After all, Roy and Silo didn't seem to give much of a damn. Tango sure seemed happy, what with not being left for dead and all. As of this writing, the Central Park Zoo has yet to be swallowed into a gaping maw of sinful doom. Any minute now, I suppose.

I am right now amused at this because it turns out Roy and Silo were not really so much of an anomaly at all. Nor were they some sort of unholy freakshow, an immoral mistake in the eyes of a wrathful hetero God. Far from it. Turns out they were, in fact, far more the norm than many humans, even to this day, want to let on.

Behold, the ongoing, increasingly startling research: homosexual and bisexual behavior, it turns out, is rampant in the animal kingdom. And by rampant, I mean proving to be damn near universal, commonplace across all species everywhere, existing for myriad reasons ranging from pure survival and procreative influence, right on over to pure pleasure, co-parenting, giddy screeching multiple monkey orgasm, even love, and a few dozen other potential explanations science hasn't quite figured out yet. Imagine.

But what of Jewish and Israeli news outlets? Jackson's relationship to Jewish culture has had it's ups and downs over the past decade, culminating in a series of anti-semitic remarks hashed out in this 2005 Jerusalem Post article. Just 4 years ago, ABC's Good Morning America replayed tapes of Jackson calling Jews "leeches" on one of their November broadcasts, inevitably incurring the wrath of the ADL. Once the recordings had been verified, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement condemning Jackson's words, and pointing out that his 1995 track "They Don't Care About Us" was deeply wrought with anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Looking at those lyrics now, I can see why the ADL was very concerned: Will me, thrill me / you can never kill me / Jew me, sue me / everybody do me / kick me, kike me / don't you black or white me. The controversial video is primarily devoted to protest against racial injustice, and includes actual footage taken from slums outside of Rio de Janeiro; however, Jackson goes out of his way to include terms that are undeniably racial slurs. In his response, he asserted that the lyrics are meant to be from the point of view of the Jew, not against him. If it were not for his later commentary on the Jew as leech, perhaps I would have an easier time defending his position here.

All things considered, Jackson is far from a Jew-hater. His friendship with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is well-documented, and is currently the subject of a thoughtful piece on The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles' blog. Though the two drifted apart after critical remarks on the part of Rabbi Boteach, it is clear from the excerpted interview that the Rabbi continues to hold Jackson in high esteem, regardless of the Rabbi's declaration that "it is utterly unacceptable for a grown man to sleep in a bed with a boy that is not his son."

Sprawling across the northeastern corner of California, this huge, thickly forested county with more cows than people epitomizes the Western frontier - and what seems to be a two-faced political ideology.

Modoc has the highest Republican registration of any county in California, it unfailingly elects anti-tax Republicans to office, and the vote here against last month's ballot measure that would have raised a variety of taxes was one of the most lopsided in the state. And yet, per capita, Modoc County gets more state taxpayer dollars than all but one of California's 58 counties.

The prevailing attitude among the right-wing ranchers and modern hippies who define Modoc County is of fierce self-reliance - but more people here than just about anywhere else depend on welfare checks of some kind to get by.

So with state Republicans blocking new taxes and insisting on deep cuts in taxpayer-funded services, does that make this most solid of GOP bases politically conflicted? Or, worse, just plain ignorant?

No way, say the cattlemen and the hippies. Most folks up here will tell you that no matter who is in office or what the big-city politicians do, the dearest wish of anyone living in Modoc is to be left alone - except for a little help for core needs like hospitals and schools.

And if you cut off our funding even for that, they say, we won't like it - but we'll get by. We're independent.

It's a frontier thing.

Split but not split

Ken McGarva and Tina Hodge will both tell you with equal ardor that government should stay out of their faces. But you wouldn't know they could agree by looking at them.

McGarva is a cowboy. The real kind, one who ropes and brands his cattle in the dot-in-the-road town of Likely. At 70, he loathes liberal politics.

Hodge is a back-to-the-land hippie. The real kind, one who raised her kids in a tepee on a remote mountaintop near tiny Eagleville and now lives off the grid in a hobbit-style house on that same mountaintop. At 57, she loathes conservative politics.

However, both McGarva and Hodge maintain that state legislators shouldn't even think of cutting health and education funding to rural counties like Modoc, where 9,184 residents knock around a territory the size of Connecticut.

Instead, they say, swing the budget ax on bloated-big-government-style frills - for instance, state-paid cars for legislators and misguided environmental regulations, though they don't always agree on which ones are misguided.

'We'll just get by'

The fact that health and education spending make up about 70 percent of California's general fund, leaving little else to cut, only emphasizes the importance of that funding, they say.

And if the Capitol does indeed slash Modoc County's money for road maintenance, health services and welfare job training - which will happen, if Sacramento's Republicans get their way - McGarva and Hodge have the same plan.

"Well, we'll just get by the way we did in the Great Depression - on our own," McGarva said, swatting mosquitoes on his porch after another hard day of herding dogies on his 1,000-head ranch. "We'll grow a vegetable garden, we'll use milk cows." If the roads are closed, he said, they always have horses.

"We have pretty much all we need here on the mountain, and if we had to we could grow more of our own food," said Hodge, standing in her front yard, which is 6,100 feet above sea level and a jarring, 4-mile rumble up a dirt road. If the roads are closed, she said, she can always pack into town using her herd of llamas.

Tabloids are king and blogs are "barely discernible from massive ignorance," according to John Hartigan, chief executive for News Limited, a cog in the Rupert Murdoch empire responsible for the publication of more than fifty newspapers in Australia.

"I'm here to celebrate the future of journalism, not to consign it to an analogue archive," he said.

But Hartigan seems to believe that online journalism is not part of that future.

Citizen journalists, he says, simply don't have the resources to bring us reliable news. They lack not only expertise and training but access to decision makers and reliable sources.

The difference, he says, between professionals and amateurs is that bloggers don't go to jail for their work – they simply aren't held accountable like real reporters.

Like Keating's famous "all tip and no iceberg", it could be said that the blogosphere is all eyeballs and no insight.

Blogger Darryl Mason rails, "John Hartigan is full of shit. Bloggers have gone to jail for their work, and to protect their sources, in North Korea, Iran, Egypt, the list of countries persecuting bloggers grows longer by the week. And the CEO of Australia's biggest news corporation doesn't know this?"

Nicole Sadighi, an Iranian living in London, England, holds her dog Mishka as she rallies beneath a large pre-revolution Iranian flag during a protest against the election results in Iran. (Photo: AP)

When I returned from covering the Iranian elections recently, I was surprised to find my email box filled with progressive authors, academics and bloggers bending themselves into knots about the current crisis in Iran. They cite the long history of US interference in Iran and conclude that the current unrest there must be sponsored or manipulated by the Empire.

That comes as quite a shock to those risking their lives daily on the streets of major Iranian cities fighting for political, social and economic justice.

Some of these authors have even cited my book, "The Iran Agenda," as a source to prove US meddling. Whoa there, pardner. Now we're getting personal.

The large majority of American people, particularly leftists and progressives, are sympathetic to the demonstrators in Iran, oppose Iranian government repression and also oppose any US military or political interference in that country. But a small and vocal number of progressives are questioning that view, including authors writing for Monthly Review online or Foreign Policy Journal, and prominent academics such as retired professor James Petras.

They mostly argue by analogy. They correctly cite numerous examples of CIA efforts to overthrow governments, sometimes by manipulating mass demonstrations. But past practice is no proof that it's happening in this particular case. Frankly, the multi-class character of the most recent demonstrations, which arose quickly and spontaneously, were beyond the control of the reformist leaders in Iran, let alone the CIA.

Let's assume for the moment that the US was trying to secretly manipulate the demonstrations for its own purposes. Did it succeed? Or were the protests reflecting 30 years of cumulative anger at a reactionary system that oppresses workers, women and ethnic minorities, indeed the vast majority of Iranians? Is President Mahmood Ahmadinejad a "nationalist-populist," as claimed by some, and therefore an ally against US domination around the world? Or is he a repressive, authoritarian leader who actually hurts the struggle against US hegemony?

After Global Gaming Factory X announced that it intends to buy The Pirate Bay for $7.8 million, the CEO of the company bombarded the press with his revolutionary plans for the site. By paying both the copyright holders and file-sharers the company aims to reshape the digital media landscape. We have our doubts.

The sale of the largest BitTorrent tracker in the world to Global Gaming Factory X (GGF) blasted like a shockwave though the BitTorrent community yesterday. For years The Pirate Bay has been a synonym for free file-sharing, something that many fear will change in the near future.

However, thus far GGF's plans for the site and tracker are rather vague and uncertain. First of all there is a huge divide between what the Pirate Bay co-founders think will happen to the site and what GGF is telling the public.

TorrentFreak has spoken with Pirate Bay co-founders Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij who both think that the Pirate Bay will stay pretty much like it is now for the time being. The only difference in the short term, according to their knowledge, is that the site will link to torrents hosted on a third party domain tracked by a third party tracker.

Both the torrent hosting service and the tracker they are referring to are still in development, the co-founders said. They are not aware of any concrete plans to turn the site into a legal venture. In an attempt to find out we asked GGF to elaborate on their future plans and the response we got was remarkable.

GFF told us that most of their recent comments to the press were nothing more than "corporate bla bla."

So let's take a look at some of the bla bla that surfaced in the past day, to see if it makes any sense at all. Here are some of the key proposals.

1. The new Pirate Bay will put a halt to illegal downloading.2. The Pirate Bay will compensate rights holders who publish their content on the site3. The Pirate Bay will pay users for sharing files.

This sounds very impressive but, to put it mildly, it raises a few concerns.

It's basically the same as saying that iTunes would pay its users to share music. When GGF has to pay both file-sharers and content providers they will undoubtedly have to raise huge sums money from a third party. So what is going to bring in this cash?

Ads of course! GGF is predicting to sell ads like no other website in the world has ever done. They told BusinessWeek that they hope to make as much as $672 million a year from advertisements.

According to the autopsy report (PDF), Habibullah was not injured when he first arrived at the Bagram detention facility:

MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW: Copies of the inprocessing evaluation are reviewed in full. The clinical portion documents the decedent as "appearing well", without injuries and offering "moderate resistance to inprocessing". The decedent was "dead on arrival" per the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) Emergency Room record which was otherwise non-contributory.

On autopsy, however, Habibullah's body bore the stigmata of torture (Graphic content warning):

Head and Neck: Multiple abrasions and contusions and evidence of ligature or other instrument applied to the neck:

On the right side of the neck there are two parallel, faint, linear abraded contusions. each averaging 1 1/4 x 1/4 inches with 1/2 inch separation between the two. They average approximately 10 inches below the top of the head and three inches to the right of the anterior midline. Just to the left of these is a similar, fainter, patchy abraded contusion inapproximately the same dimensions.

Torso: Multiple contusions and abrasions including "brush burn" injuries consistent with being dragged on the ground.

Extremities: Multiple contusions and abrasions, including injuries around the wrists consistent with shackling. On the thighs were linear contusions likely made from being struck with blunt objects. The patterns in the skin of the left calf revealed the likely source of the injuries- combat boots:

On the back of the left knee and calf is a 11 x 7 1/2 inch red-dark purple contusion which extends upwards above the back of the knee in a linear fashion. On internal examination, confluent hemorrhage extends deep within the muscle which is focally necrotic. On the left calf, centrally located, is a patterned abrasion consisting of multiple parallel horizontal linear abrasions the largest averaging 1 1/2 x 1/4 inches, these are closely spaced.

* United States Codeo TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE+ PART I - CRIMES# CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04Section 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits orattempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title orimprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results toany person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall bepunished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activityprohibited in subsection (a) if -(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,irrespective of the nationality of the victim or allegedoffender.

(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offenseunder this section shall be subject to the same penalties (otherthan the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for theoffense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

While the plight of homeowners affected by the real estate meltdown has been well-documented, renters too often fall under the radar. Although tenants' advocacy groups credit recently passed national legislation for including some protections, they charge that the new law only scratches the surface.

The number of renters being forced from their homes is on the rise as foreclosures increase. "We've seen a mass increase. I would say it's up by 50 percent," said Arlene Bradley, housing advocacy director of Housing Rights Inc. in Berkeley, Calif., a group that provides legal advice and counseling to renters in the greater San Francisco Bay area.

Prior to the new legislation that went into effect last month, tenants were at the mercy of the lender, and the results could be very disruptive. Renters could be forced from their homes with a mere five days' notice in the state of Arizona, said William Deegan, executive director of the Phoenix-based American Tenants Association.

Under the new rule, which was passed May 20 and took effect immediately, an addendum to a broader housing bill addressing the foreclosure crisis, a lender who takes possession of a property or a new owner who buys the building at auction has to let a tenant stay for 90 days or until their lease is up. The rules are a bit different if someone is buying the property to live in; in that case, they can terminate a lease with 90 days' notice. "This guarantees 90 days," said Ed Josephson, director of litigation for South Brooklyn Legal Services in New York. "Before the law they could throw you out in the middle of your lease."

While those who work with renters across the country say the legislation is a vast improvement over the earlier status quo, they also call the law incomplete. Too often, renters are at the mercy of courts and a financial system ill-equipped to deal with their particular challenges. For one thing, a tenant is still more likely than not to lose his or her security deposit if the owner goes into foreclosure

"The problem is the bank isn't interested in dealing with you and the old owner is long gone," said Janet Portland, lawyer and author of Every Tenant's Legal Guide. While a tenant can take a landlord to small claims court, if they've declared bankruptcy — which is common — the renter is probably out of luck when it comes to collecting on a judgment.

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again

By MATT TAIBBI

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup - which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the rear end in a top hat chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman - not to mention ...

But then, any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain - an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere - high gas prices, rising consumer-credit rates, half-eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts. All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth - pure profit for rich individuals.

They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s - and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet. ...

IF AMERICA IS NOW CIRCLING THE DRAIN, GOLDMAN SACHS HAS FOUND A WAY TO BE THAT DRAIN.